Technological Advisory Council Recommendation for Improving Receiver Performance, 26777-26779 [2013-10840]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2013 / Notices
the system, select ‘‘docket search,’’ then
key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing at https://www.regulations.gov
as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidentiality of
Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket,
go to https://www.regulations.gov.
Title: NSPS for Flexible Vinyl and
Urethane Coating and Printing
(Renewal).
ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number
1157.10, OMB Control Number 2060–
0073.
ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to
expire on June 30, 2013. Under OMB
regulations, the Agency may continue to
either conduct or sponsor the collection
of information while this submission is
pending at OMB.
Abstract: The affected entities are
subject to the General Provisions of the
NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and
any changes, or additions to the
Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart FFF. Owners or operators of the
affected facilities must submit initial
notification, performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or
operators are also required to maintain
records of the occurrence and duration
of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction in the operation of an
affected facility, or any period during
which the monitoring system is
inoperative. Reports are required
semiannually at a minimum.
Respondents/Affected Entities:
Entities potentially affected by this
action are the owners or operators of
flexible vinyl and urethane coating and
printing operations facilities.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 24
Frequency of Response: Initially and
semiannually
Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden:
775. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
Estimated Total Annual Cost:
$297,664, which includes $75,064 in
labor costs, $6,600 in capital/startup
costs, and $216,000 in operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
Changes in the Estimates: There is an
overall increase in burden primarily due
to an increase in the number of sources
subject to the standard. There is also a
corresponding increase in the total O&M
costs because more sources are now
subject to the standard. There are
additional changes in both respondent
and Agency burden estimates that are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:56 May 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
attributed to the correction of
mathematical discrepancies identified
in the previous ICR.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013–10884 Filed 5–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[ET Docket No. 13–101; DA 13–801]
Technological Advisory Council
Recommendation for Improving
Receiver Performance
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The FCC’s Technological
Advisory Council (TAC) has been tasked
to study the role of receivers in ensuring
the efficient use of spectrum and to
provide recommendations on avoiding
obstacles posed by receiver performance
to making spectrum available for new
services. Acting on this request, the
TAC working group on Receivers and
Spectrum provided actionable
recommendations to the Chairman at
the TAC’s December 2012 meeting and
has recently formalized these
recommendations in a white paper for
the Commission. The FCC’s Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET)
invites comment on the TAC white
paper and its recommendations to help
determine what next steps may be
appropriate.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be filed on or
before June 21, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before
July 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ET Docket No. 13–101, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Mail: Robert Pavlak, Office of
Engineering and Technology,
Electromagnetic Compatibility Division,
Room 6–A420, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26777
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418–0761, email
Robert.Pavlak@fcc.gov, or Ronald
Repasi, (202) 418–0768, TTY (202) 418–
2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Public
Notice, ET Docket No. 13–101, DA 13–
801, released April 22, 2013. The full
text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text of this document also may
be purchased from the Commission’s
copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full
text may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
D Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
26778
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
D U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Summary of the Public Notice
1. Early in 2012, Chairman Julius
Genachowski tasked the FCC’s
Technological Advisory Council (TAC)
to study the role of receivers in ensuring
the efficient use of spectrum and to
provide recommendations on avoiding
obstacles posed by receiver performance
to making spectrum available for new
services. Acting on this request, the
TAC working group on Receivers and
Spectrum provided actionable
recommendations to the Chairman at
the TAC’s December 2012 meeting and
has recently formalized these
recommendations in a white paper for
the Commission to consider, titled,
Interference Limits Policy—The use of
harm claim thresholds to improve the
interference tolerance of wireless
systems; at https://transition.fcc.gov/
bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaper
TACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf (TAC
white paper). The FCC’s Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET)
invites comment on the TAC white
paper and its recommendations to help
determine what next steps may be
appropriate.
2. In addition to the work of the TAC,
the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) was tasked by Congress in the
Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 to study spectrum
efficiency and receiver performance.
The GAO report, Further Consideration
of Options to Improve Receiver
Performance Needed, at https://
www.gao.gov/assets/660/652284.pdf,
was recently published and makes
reference to the TAC white paper. The
report recommends the Commission
consider small-scale pilot tests and
other methods to collect information on
the practical effects of various options
for improving receiver performance.
3. Also, in July 2012, the President’s
Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST) published a report,
titled, Realizing the Full Potential of
Government-Held Spectrum to Spur
Economic Growth; at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:56 May 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_
final_july_20_2012.pdf. This report
noted the important role of receivers in
spectrum policy and regulation, and
recommended receiver interference
limits be defined to specify the level of
radio interference that receivers should
be expected to tolerate without being
able to make claims of harmful
interference. The TAC white paper
focuses on this definition of
‘‘interference limits’’ in making its
policy proposals.
4. The TAC white paper sets forth an
interference limits policy approach, and
suggests that steps should be taken to
define the radio environment in which
receivers are expected to operate.
According to the paper, this approach
would make it easier to determine
which party bears responsibility for
mitigating harmful interference when it
occurs, by specifying signal power
levels called ‘‘harm claim thresholds’’
that a service would be expected to
tolerate from other services before a
claim of harmful interference could be
made. The TAC white paper asserts this
approach would avoid the need to
mandate that receivers be built, sold, or
operated with specific performance
characteristics. In addition, it could
incentivize incumbent spectrum users
to improve receivers to more efficiently
use spectrum without stifling
innovation and receiver design.
5. OET seeks specific comment on the
TAC white paper, which recommends
multiple actions the Commission could
take to implement an interference limits
policy. We also seek comment on the
overall interference limits policy
approach proposed in that white paper
and information on the practical effects
of various options including the method
used today relative to receiver standards
and specifications, the use of multistakeholder organizations in the
development of interference thresholds,
and the role of the FCC.
Interference Limits Policy Approach
6. Comments are requested on the
viability of the overall interference
limits policy approach presented in the
TAC white paper. In particular, we
invite parties to comment on the
viability of the use of an interference
limits policy approach among services
operating in adjacent frequency bands.
What are the costs and benefits
associated with this approach? Are there
specific frequency bands or services that
would particularly benefit from this
approach or where implementation is
straightforward and would be
appropriate for a trial? We request
comment on any areas where additional
technical analysis may be needed to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
implement an interference limits policy
approach, such as the impact of various
coding and modulation schemes on
interference thresholds, propagation
models that should be used in
determining the interference thresholds,
measurement methods for assessing
compliance with the limits in cases of
interference, and methods for
determining the performance
characteristics of currently deployed
receivers and systems. In addition, we
invite parties to discuss the key
implementation issues of the proposed
approach that would need to be
addressed as the Commission focuses on
making additional spectrum available
for new mobile and fixed wireless
broadband services. Would proactive
attention to establishing interference
limits create more certainty in the
marketplace for spectrum
(re)allocations?
7. The TAC white paper makes note
that an interference limits policy
approach may not be appropriate in all
cases. Are there other policy approaches
that should be considered? Moreover,
the GAO report identifies the lack of
incentives for manufacturers or
spectrum users to incur costs associated
with using more robust receivers, and
the difficulty of accommodating a
changing spectrum environment, such
as when spectrum is repurposed for a
new use. Are the incentives in the TAC
white paper recommendations for
improving receiver robustness to
interference sufficient? Are there other
incentives not mentioned in the TAC
white paper recommendations that
should be considered? Should the
Commission consider circumstances
unique to each service, such as the
diversity of devices available, the cost of
replacement devices, typical
replacement times, or sophistication of
users that may impact the practicality,
necessity, or sufficiency of such an
approach? How should the
technological evolution of components
and receiver design influence the
timeframe and evolution of interference
limits? In light of these issues, are there
other alternatives, or other options
within an interference limits policy
approach, that should be considered for
further analysis and/or small-scale pilot
tests? What are the cost and benefit
tradeoffs of these alternatives?
Receiver Standards
8. Industry standards for receiver
performance exist for certain federal and
non-federal wireless services and
technologies. There are also wireless
services for which there are no industry
guidelines or standards for receiver
performance. Where industry standards
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 8, 2013 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
exist for receivers, what is the
relationship between these standards
and the method for determining
appropriate harm claim thresholds for
receivers? How do actual receivers
perform in relation to existing
performance standards? How are
receivers evaluated in meeting those
industry standards? Where there are
industry standards, how are such
standards enforced? To the extent
standards are voluntary, how do users of
receivers know whether equipment
meets or exceeds such standards? Where
there are no industry standards for
receiver performance, how should
acceptable thresholds of receiver
performance be developed and
validated? What are the technical and
performance issues among diverse
wireless services that need to be
understood and analyzed between
different stakeholder groups, especially
the developers of wireless transmitters,
receivers and components? What are the
cost and performance trends of key
receiver components that determine
practical thresholds of system
performance?
9. The TAC recommends that the FCC
implement a Web accessible repository
(e.g., through the FCC spectrum
dashboard) of existing receiver
standards, and a voluntary repository of
receiver specifications for existing
receivers. This, the TAC contends,
would facilitate technical information
sharing among diverse stakeholder
groups of wireless system developers
who need to know and understand the
specifications of systems other than
their own. How effective would this
method of information sharing be for
product developers? What are the
source documents that would be
appropriate for such a repository? Are
there additional and/or more effective
methods, perhaps industry-led, to share
receiver technical standards and
specifications between stakeholder
groups that traditionally do not work
together in the same industry groups
(e.g., standards organizations)? Given
the increasing number of devices
developed for international use, would
an industry-led approach be more
effective than a US-specific repository?
Multi-Stakeholder Organizations
10. The TAC recommends that the
Commission encourage the formation of
one or more multi-stakeholder groups to
investigate interference limits policy at
suitable high-value inter-service
boundaries. We seek comment on such
a multi-stakeholder process and solicit
interest from candidate participants.
What frequency bands would be most
appropriate for considering the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:56 May 07, 2013
Jkt 229001
formation of a multi-stakeholder
organization to develop technical
parameters and methods for
implementing an interference limits
policy? Are there more effective
methods of organizing a diverse group
of stakeholders for developing such
technical parameters?
11. What is the best way to initiate the
formation of a multi-stakeholder group?
We invite comment and
recommendations on applicable
governance, issue resolution, and
enforcement methods, including but not
limited to how stakeholders can
coordinate across industry segments,
such as those where voluntary standards
are needed and/or developed. Also,
recognizing that service boundaries and
spectrum sharing often involve both
non-federal and federal spectrum users,
we seek comment on the costs and
benefits of a comprehensive approach
between the FCC and NTIA to
incorporate receiver performance into
spectrum management practices. How
should the FCC and NTIA coordinate
with government agencies and other
stakeholders to address situations where
large numbers of users are impacted by
changes to adjacent spectrum licenses?
Should the FCC and NTIA perform band
assessments to determine where
possible future repurposing in a band
might impact adjacent bands and
develop plans and processes to ensure
proper protections?
Role of the FCC
12. We seek general comment on
whether and how the Commission
should implement a policy that
incentivizes improved interference
tolerance of wireless systems.
Specifically, should the FCC adopt a
policy of employing interference limits
in certain cases of neighboring bands
and services? Should the FCC adopt
specific rules for establishing
interference limits that are
recommended by one or more multistakeholder groups? Should the FCC
develop a compliance model similar to
the one used in the context of CALEA,
in which there is industry-led
establishment of standards and
solutions and the Commission would
get involved only via special petition?
We envision that the FCC could be a
facilitator in a non-directive role with
convening stakeholders. Also, the GAO
recommends consideration of smallscale pilot tests of options for improving
receiver performance. What should be
the scope of an appropriate pilot test?
What role should the FCC play in
encouraging and initiating industry
action? Are there existing FCC
proceedings where incentives to
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26779
improve the interference tolerance of
wireless systems should be applied?
Federal Communications Commission.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013–10840 Filed 5–7–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
Notice of Agreements Filed
The Commission hereby gives notice
of the filing of the following agreements
under the Shipping Act of 1984.
Interested parties may submit comments
on the agreements to the Secretary,
Federal Maritime Commission,
Washington, DC 20573, within ten days
of the date this notice appears in the
Federal Register. Copies of the
agreements are available through the
Commission’s Web site (www.fmc.gov)
or by contacting the Office of
Agreements at (202) 523–5793 or
tradeanalysis@fmc.gov.
Agreement No.: 011325–042.
Title: Westbound Transpacific
Stabilization Agreement.
Parties: American President Lines,
Ltd./APL Co. Pte Ltd. (withdrawal from
agreement effective September 1, 2012);
COSCO Container Lines Company
Limited; Evergreen Line Joint Service
Agreement; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.;
Hapag-Lloyd AG; Hyundai Merchant
Marine Co. Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha,
Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha Line; Orient
Overseas Container Line Limited; and
Yangming Marine Transport Corp.
Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.;
Cozen O’Connor; 627 I Street NW.; Suite
1100; Washington, DC 20006.
Synopsis: This amendment reflects
the suspension of the agreement,
effective May 1, 2013 through April 14,
2015.
Agreement No.: 011602–013.
Title: Grand Alliance Agreement II.
Parties: Hapag-Lloyd AG; HapagLloyd USA LLC; Nippon Yusen Kaisha;
Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.;
Orient Overseas Container Line Limited;
and Orient Overseas Container Line
(Europe) Limited.
Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.;
Cozen O’Connor; 1627 I Street NW.,
Suite 1100; Washington, DC 20006.
Synopsis: The amendment would
revise the agreement to reflect the fact
that the parties have agreed to charter
and rationalize vessel space among
themselves and with other VOCCs in the
trade pursuant to the parties’
participation in the G6 Alliance
Agreement.
Agreement No.: 012194–001.
E:\FR\FM\08MYN1.SGM
08MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26777-26779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10840]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[ET Docket No. 13-101; DA 13-801]
Technological Advisory Council Recommendation for Improving
Receiver Performance
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has been tasked
to study the role of receivers in ensuring the efficient use of
spectrum and to provide recommendations on avoiding obstacles posed by
receiver performance to making spectrum available for new services.
Acting on this request, the TAC working group on Receivers and Spectrum
provided actionable recommendations to the Chairman at the TAC's
December 2012 meeting and has recently formalized these recommendations
in a white paper for the Commission. The FCC's Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC white paper and its
recommendations to help determine what next steps may be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 21, 2013, and reply
comments must be filed on or before July 8, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 13-101,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering and Technology,
Electromagnetic Compatibility Division, Room 6-A420, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Pavlak, Office of Engineering
and Technology, (202) 418-0761, email Robert.Pavlak@fcc.gov, or Ronald
Repasi, (202) 418-0768, TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Public
Notice, ET Docket No. 13-101, DA 13-801, released April 22, 2013. The
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-
A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of
this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room,
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail
[[Page 26778]]
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol
Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Summary of the Public Notice
1. Early in 2012, Chairman Julius Genachowski tasked the FCC's
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) to study the role of receivers in
ensuring the efficient use of spectrum and to provide recommendations
on avoiding obstacles posed by receiver performance to making spectrum
available for new services. Acting on this request, the TAC working
group on Receivers and Spectrum provided actionable recommendations to
the Chairman at the TAC's December 2012 meeting and has recently
formalized these recommendations in a white paper for the Commission to
consider, titled, Interference Limits Policy--The use of harm claim
thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems;
at https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/WhitePaperTACInterferenceLimitsv1.0.pdf (TAC white paper). The FCC's
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) invites comment on the TAC
white paper and its recommendations to help determine what next steps
may be appropriate.
2. In addition to the work of the TAC, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) was tasked by Congress in the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to study spectrum efficiency
and receiver performance. The GAO report, Further Consideration of
Options to Improve Receiver Performance Needed, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652284.pdf, was recently published and makes reference to
the TAC white paper. The report recommends the Commission consider
small-scale pilot tests and other methods to collect information on the
practical effects of various options for improving receiver
performance.
3. Also, in July 2012, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) published a report, titled, Realizing
the Full Potential of Government-Held Spectrum to Spur Economic Growth;
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast_spectrum_report_final_july_20_2012.pdf. This report noted
the important role of receivers in spectrum policy and regulation, and
recommended receiver interference limits be defined to specify the
level of radio interference that receivers should be expected to
tolerate without being able to make claims of harmful interference. The
TAC white paper focuses on this definition of ``interference limits''
in making its policy proposals.
4. The TAC white paper sets forth an interference limits policy
approach, and suggests that steps should be taken to define the radio
environment in which receivers are expected to operate. According to
the paper, this approach would make it easier to determine which party
bears responsibility for mitigating harmful interference when it
occurs, by specifying signal power levels called ``harm claim
thresholds'' that a service would be expected to tolerate from other
services before a claim of harmful interference could be made. The TAC
white paper asserts this approach would avoid the need to mandate that
receivers be built, sold, or operated with specific performance
characteristics. In addition, it could incentivize incumbent spectrum
users to improve receivers to more efficiently use spectrum without
stifling innovation and receiver design.
5. OET seeks specific comment on the TAC white paper, which
recommends multiple actions the Commission could take to implement an
interference limits policy. We also seek comment on the overall
interference limits policy approach proposed in that white paper and
information on the practical effects of various options including the
method used today relative to receiver standards and specifications,
the use of multi-stakeholder organizations in the development of
interference thresholds, and the role of the FCC.
Interference Limits Policy Approach
6. Comments are requested on the viability of the overall
interference limits policy approach presented in the TAC white paper.
In particular, we invite parties to comment on the viability of the use
of an interference limits policy approach among services operating in
adjacent frequency bands. What are the costs and benefits associated
with this approach? Are there specific frequency bands or services that
would particularly benefit from this approach or where implementation
is straightforward and would be appropriate for a trial? We request
comment on any areas where additional technical analysis may be needed
to implement an interference limits policy approach, such as the impact
of various coding and modulation schemes on interference thresholds,
propagation models that should be used in determining the interference
thresholds, measurement methods for assessing compliance with the
limits in cases of interference, and methods for determining the
performance characteristics of currently deployed receivers and
systems. In addition, we invite parties to discuss the key
implementation issues of the proposed approach that would need to be
addressed as the Commission focuses on making additional spectrum
available for new mobile and fixed wireless broadband services. Would
proactive attention to establishing interference limits create more
certainty in the marketplace for spectrum (re)allocations?
7. The TAC white paper makes note that an interference limits
policy approach may not be appropriate in all cases. Are there other
policy approaches that should be considered? Moreover, the GAO report
identifies the lack of incentives for manufacturers or spectrum users
to incur costs associated with using more robust receivers, and the
difficulty of accommodating a changing spectrum environment, such as
when spectrum is repurposed for a new use. Are the incentives in the
TAC white paper recommendations for improving receiver robustness to
interference sufficient? Are there other incentives not mentioned in
the TAC white paper recommendations that should be considered? Should
the Commission consider circumstances unique to each service, such as
the diversity of devices available, the cost of replacement devices,
typical replacement times, or sophistication of users that may impact
the practicality, necessity, or sufficiency of such an approach? How
should the technological evolution of components and receiver design
influence the timeframe and evolution of interference limits? In light
of these issues, are there other alternatives, or other options within
an interference limits policy approach, that should be considered for
further analysis and/or small-scale pilot tests? What are the cost and
benefit tradeoffs of these alternatives?
Receiver Standards
8. Industry standards for receiver performance exist for certain
federal and non-federal wireless services and technologies. There are
also wireless services for which there are no industry guidelines or
standards for receiver performance. Where industry standards
[[Page 26779]]
exist for receivers, what is the relationship between these standards
and the method for determining appropriate harm claim thresholds for
receivers? How do actual receivers perform in relation to existing
performance standards? How are receivers evaluated in meeting those
industry standards? Where there are industry standards, how are such
standards enforced? To the extent standards are voluntary, how do users
of receivers know whether equipment meets or exceeds such standards?
Where there are no industry standards for receiver performance, how
should acceptable thresholds of receiver performance be developed and
validated? What are the technical and performance issues among diverse
wireless services that need to be understood and analyzed between
different stakeholder groups, especially the developers of wireless
transmitters, receivers and components? What are the cost and
performance trends of key receiver components that determine practical
thresholds of system performance?
9. The TAC recommends that the FCC implement a Web accessible
repository (e.g., through the FCC spectrum dashboard) of existing
receiver standards, and a voluntary repository of receiver
specifications for existing receivers. This, the TAC contends, would
facilitate technical information sharing among diverse stakeholder
groups of wireless system developers who need to know and understand
the specifications of systems other than their own. How effective would
this method of information sharing be for product developers? What are
the source documents that would be appropriate for such a repository?
Are there additional and/or more effective methods, perhaps industry-
led, to share receiver technical standards and specifications between
stakeholder groups that traditionally do not work together in the same
industry groups (e.g., standards organizations)? Given the increasing
number of devices developed for international use, would an industry-
led approach be more effective than a US-specific repository?
Multi-Stakeholder Organizations
10. The TAC recommends that the Commission encourage the formation
of one or more multi-stakeholder groups to investigate interference
limits policy at suitable high-value inter-service boundaries. We seek
comment on such a multi-stakeholder process and solicit interest from
candidate participants. What frequency bands would be most appropriate
for considering the formation of a multi-stakeholder organization to
develop technical parameters and methods for implementing an
interference limits policy? Are there more effective methods of
organizing a diverse group of stakeholders for developing such
technical parameters?
11. What is the best way to initiate the formation of a multi-
stakeholder group? We invite comment and recommendations on applicable
governance, issue resolution, and enforcement methods, including but
not limited to how stakeholders can coordinate across industry
segments, such as those where voluntary standards are needed and/or
developed. Also, recognizing that service boundaries and spectrum
sharing often involve both non-federal and federal spectrum users, we
seek comment on the costs and benefits of a comprehensive approach
between the FCC and NTIA to incorporate receiver performance into
spectrum management practices. How should the FCC and NTIA coordinate
with government agencies and other stakeholders to address situations
where large numbers of users are impacted by changes to adjacent
spectrum licenses? Should the FCC and NTIA perform band assessments to
determine where possible future repurposing in a band might impact
adjacent bands and develop plans and processes to ensure proper
protections?
Role of the FCC
12. We seek general comment on whether and how the Commission
should implement a policy that incentivizes improved interference
tolerance of wireless systems. Specifically, should the FCC adopt a
policy of employing interference limits in certain cases of neighboring
bands and services? Should the FCC adopt specific rules for
establishing interference limits that are recommended by one or more
multi-stakeholder groups? Should the FCC develop a compliance model
similar to the one used in the context of CALEA, in which there is
industry-led establishment of standards and solutions and the
Commission would get involved only via special petition? We envision
that the FCC could be a facilitator in a non-directive role with
convening stakeholders. Also, the GAO recommends consideration of
small-scale pilot tests of options for improving receiver performance.
What should be the scope of an appropriate pilot test? What role should
the FCC play in encouraging and initiating industry action? Are there
existing FCC proceedings where incentives to improve the interference
tolerance of wireless systems should be applied?
Federal Communications Commission.
Julius P. Knapp,
Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-10840 Filed 5-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P